You have not caused any harm unless you have violated my rights and freedoms. — m-theory

No that's just an ideology which you use now because you realise that your argument doesn't hold. Everyone here can probably testify that if I do that I will cause harm.

I have no idea what you are saying here? — m-theory

For example, after I insult you, you get upset and report it to the moderators, they could come and tell you that it's your fault for getting insulted so easily. That would be, in the name of my freedom to insult, applying social pressure to maintain that freedom.

No that's just an ideology which you use now because you realise that your argument doesn't hold. Everyone here can probably testify that if I do that I will cause harm. — Agustino

No this is the most sensible position to hold.

For example, after I insult you, you get upset and report it to the moderators, they could come and tell you that it's your fault for getting insulted so easily. That would be, in the name of my freedom to insult, applying social pressure to maintain that freedom. — Agustino

It would be my fault for being upset, I am responsible for my own emotions.
Your insults would have no real power over me because they would not be able to violate my rights or freedoms so they have no real power to cause harm.

.

No this is the most sensible position to hold. — m-theory

So it's a sensible position to hold that lying to my girlfriend, insulting you, or emotionally blackmailing people aren't harmful?

It would be my fault for being upset, I am responsible for my own emotions. — m-theory

According to scientific findings, only to a certain extent. There are situations when you can't control the emotions that you feel.

So it's a sensible position to hold that lying to my girlfriend, insulting you, or emotionally blackmailing people aren't harmful? — Agustino

They do not harm anybodies freedoms.

According to scientific findings, only to a certain extent. There are situations when you can't control the emotions that you feel. — Agustino

There is an extent to which we can control our emotions though.
And it is our responsibility to do so,

They do not harm anybodies freedoms. — m-theory

So? If they don't harm someone's freedom that means they don't do any harm at all?

There is an extent to which we can control our emotions though.
And it is our responsibility to do so, — m-theory

Sure.

So? If they don't harm someone's freedom that means they don't do any harm at all? — Agustino

If you don't infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others you are not legally responsible for any harm.

...we have to come to terms with several impossibilities: — Agustino

(1) The impossibility of globalisation — Agustino

In one sense, globalization has already happened. Communication, trade, and travel have greatly diminished the sense of 'separateness' that people experienced say, a century ago, and further back. Whether economic integration would be a good thing or not, I just don't know. For the winners it would be fine, of course. Everybody else, not so much.

(2) The impossibility of a unified multicultural society — Agustino

Is it impossible? The US has been multicultural for what, 150 years, give or take a few. Each new intensification of multiculturalism tends to cause the established culture to recoil, but in time the newcomers become part of the established culture. Maybe 2 or 3 generations. The Western Hemisphere was repopulated over the last 500 years. There were decidedly winners and losers in this process, but multiculturalism was the result.

Still, multiculturalism isn't an entirely settled issue.

(3) The impossibility of an economic system based on and fueled by the idea of infinite growth — Agustino

Total agreement here. Clearly enough, economic growth has limits because the foundation of any economy -- conveniently accessible minerals and fertile soils -- is limited. The huge deposits of iron, copper, tin, coal, and so on turned out to be a lot less than infinite. (High quality sand for concrete is finite too, and even that is becoming scarcer.) Same goes for fertile soils.

(4) The impossibility of sustaining social order in a society driven by consumerism — Agustino

Clearly, "consumption" is insufficient to justify anyone's existence, and that is a major problem already recognized back in the 1950s and 1960s. (I think it was) Edgar Friedenberg who noted that one of the functions of the American education system was to regulate the labor pool of the young, and keep young people in the role of "consumption" and out of "production" for as long as possible -- maybe past the PhD.)

The counterculture of the 1950s (beatniks) and 1960s (hippies and all) was anti-consumerism. "Turn on, tune in, drop out" was Timothy Leary's idea. Lame brained as it was, it was also anti-consumerism (except for the production and consumption of Lysergic acid diethylamide).

It would be my fault for being upset, I am responsible for my own emotions. — m-theory

I don't buy this theory that we are so encapsulated that how we respond to other people's actions is purely a matter of our own choices. Because we are social animals, the signals we receive from other people do affect us--beyond the way we wish to respond.

Granted, we can prepare ourselves for a difficult interaction, and if properly prepared we can defend ourselves. But often verbal/non-verbal social assaults come out of left field, or are so consistent that we eventually lose our ability to ignore them.

We are, at least to some extent, responsible for the consequences of our behavior on other people.

I don't buy this theory that we are so encapsulated that how we respond to other people's actions is purely a matter of our own choices. — Bitter Crank

This makes no sense to me.
How we respond to the behavior of others is completely within our control if our rights and freedoms are intact.
For example if some one insults you, and your rights and freedoms are not impeded, it is well within your control to depart the company of that person.

The same if you discover that a person is lying to you, it is within your control to deem them untrustworthy and treat them accordingly.

Of course there are exceptions.
If you verbally abuse a child that does not have the means to remove themselves from the situation, then you are infringing upon the rights of that child.

or are so consistent that we eventually lose our ability to ignore them. — Bitter Crank

This amounts to harassment and of course there should be exceptions there too.
That is reasonable and you will have no argument from me on that point.

If you don't infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others you are not legally responsible for any harm. — m-theory

But consequences for harming someone don't necessarily have to be of a legal nature...

I don't buy this theory that we are so encapsulated that how we respond to other people's actions is purely a matter of our own choices.
— Bitter Crank

This makes no sense to me. — m-theory

We have more control about the behavior we display than the emotions we feel.

You invite your girlfriend to dinner. She says she is busy. You ask her to suggest a better date. She says, "Never. I don't want to see you again. Don't call me anymore."

It would be surprising if you could dial up whatever emotional reaction you thought was appropriate at that moment.

You ask your daughter to clean up her room. She turns to you and says, "Fuck you, creep." (Or whatever it is that daughters say these days.) This response is unexpected. You have 100% control over how you feel at that point?

The boss calls you in and tells you the company doesn't want you anymore. "Give me your keys and I'll escort you to the front door. Your belongings will be sent to you." No uncontrolled emotional reaction?

Maybe I am projecting. I have, in the past, been in situations where people got through whatever shields I maintained and "it got to me" and I reacted without selecting the best response. For the last few years I have been much more "in control" in that I have been much less reactive. But then, I have been going out of my way to avoid situations where I might run into static. But still, quite pleasant interactions happen and I can't seem to help respond positively.

Yes and I pointed out that the consequences tend to be that people will not trust if you lie, and people won't keep your company if you are insulting.

Yes and I pointed out that the consequences tend to be that people will not trust if you lie, and people won't keep your company if you are insulting. — m-theory

Right, so all you mean is that harm should be punished, just not in legal manners. But there are other means. Social pressure, etc.

We have more control about the behavior we display than the emotions we feel. — Bitter Crank

That was my entire point.
If you have rights and freedoms you are in control of how you respond to the behavior of others.
And provided you do not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others it is up to you to decide what is the appropriate response.

You invite your girlfriend to dinner. She says she is busy. You ask her to suggest a better date. She says, "Never. I don't want to see you again. Don't call me anymore." — Bitter Crank

Yes but she has not caused harm to your rights or freedoms, it was never your right that she should be your girlfriend.

You ask your daughter to clean up her room. She turns to you and says, "Fuck you, creep." (Or whatever it is that daughters say these days.) This response is unexpected. You have 100% control over how you feel at that point? — Bitter Crank

Again this does not harm your rights or freedoms?
How you respond is your responsibility don't you agree, it can not properly be the responsibility of any other?

The boss calls you in and tells you the company doesn't want you anymore. "Give me your keys and I'll escort you to the front door. Your belongings will be sent to you." No uncontrolled emotional reaction? — Bitter Crank

Yes but does this cause you any real harm?
Should we consider hurt feelings a harm to such extent that limit rights and freedoms in an effort to prevent hurt feelings?
Wouldn't that be an effort in vain?

Maybe I am projecting. I have, in the past, been in situations where people got through whatever shields I maintained and "it got to me" and I reacted without selecting the best response. For the last few years I have been much more "in control" in that I have been much less reactive. But then, I have been going out of my way to avoid situations where I might run into static. But still, quite pleasant interactions happen and I can't seem to help respond positively. — Bitter Crank

My point is accountability for how you deal with your emotions.
I am not accountable for how you deal with your emotions and it is reasonable to expect you to be able to do this for yourself despite the fact that your emotional attitudes can be affected from the decisions of others.

Right, being an ass will become it's own punishment because others will penalize us for such behavior.

The world is on the wrong track but in the right direction

What's the heading or direction of the world when the distance between its galaxies is expanding?

What's the heading or direction of the world when the distance between its galaxies is expanding — jkop

Science is overrated and religion is underestimated.

Science is overrated and religion is underestimated — TheMadFool

So what would be examples of medicine being overrated and prayer underestimated?

So what would be examples of medicine being overrated and prayer underestimated? — jkop

Hasn't all of history, include science, been about there being more to something than what appears at first glance?

To give an example consider cosmology. To the earliest humans it was rather obvious that the sun revolves around the earth. It was only later they realized that the new reality is that the earth revolves around the sun. Who's to say that current scientific facts are just similar - waiting for the next paradigm shift?

One important lesson from history has been to always keep an open mind, not be blinkered by what is obvious.

At the other extreme is religion and likewise we must be cautious about dismissing a more supernatural interpretation of our universe.